Has anyone driven/owned an 88-94 BMW 750
Well, I participated in the Susan G Komen (or Koman) drive for the cure in August when they came through T-Town. They had three 7-series available to drive, a 745i, 745Li and a 760Li. The waiting list was so long on the 760 that I blew the chance off to drive it. But I drove everything else that they had available except for a Z4 3.0. The line up that I experienced are as follows, Z4 2.5, several 3-series coupes, sedans, convertibles as well as a 325ix wagon and a 325ix sedan manual transmission (the clutch on it was truly tired). The line up also consisted of a 525i, 530i, 540i wagon, X5 3.0 and 4.4. I told myself that I would not touch the i-drive but I got ****y and started to fiddle with it in the 745Li, the first BMW of the day that I drove. I felt that the i-drive was simple and not that hard to interact with. That is until I drove the 745i, the last Bimmer I drove that day. Could not get the i-drive or the voice controls to respond to my wishes at all. The new sevens have a great ride and would be an ideal highway car. But as the world knows the styling of the 7-series has been all "BANGLED-UP!!!". I talked to a few of the folks that drove the 760Li and they pretty much had the same responce. Smooth incredible power. But if I were to do the Bimmer thing it would have to be a present generation 330i, M-3 or what I would really like, a 2003 540 automatic M-5 clone. It would be a nice addition to the 3.5 Maxima and the 4.5Q. Of course I would do a G35s, G35sc or a 350Z before I got a 330 or M-3. Thats just after I get filthy rich.
-
Bubba1
- Moderator
- Posts: 16082
- Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 1:42 pm
- Car: 2003 Nissan 350z
2024 Honda HR-V
2008 Toyota Corolla S
2001 Toyota Avalon XLS
AREITU wrote:On the contrary, there's an article in a car magazine...I don't remember what exactly, but it mentioned the 750iL as a good used car. It's all about the regular maintainence. If you're willing to front up the money for that, and 14 miles per gallon for premium fuel, nothing beats a V12. A friend of mine had a V12 Jaguar and it was the epitome of automotive excellence. One has not lived until he or she has heard and experienced a V12 in person. It was smoother than a baby's *** and made sounds that I could record and listen to over and over.
My father had a V-12 Ferrari for over 20 years and an ol' Jag roadster prior to that. I agree with you that there is nothing sweeter than the music of a V-12. Very smooth. And my dad's Ferrari was surprisingly reliable too, (moreso than the Jag), But based on personal experience, I can tell you owning a european V-12 car is a WHOLE lot more expensive than owning a mass produced Japanese 6 banger like a Q. If you think otherwise, you need to change cigarette brands. Even if Bimmers are reliable, their parts will inevitably wear out, and when you have to replace them, that's were the sticker shock comes in. I know many BMW and Porsche owners, and they all love their cars. but these guys all have multiple cars and none of them are not on a limited budget. So if money is an object to you, you'd be crazy to buy a V-12 exotic. Acquisition is the only cheap part. You don't have to believe me. Go ahead and buy one and see what you spend....
-
lessthanjakejohn
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 6:39 am
-
elwesso
- Posts: 30810
- Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 4:52 pm
- Car: 94 Infiniti Q45t 5 spd
2007 BMW M Coupe
2007 Infiniti G35 S 6MT - Location: Indiana
- Contact:
Bubba1 wrote: ....owning a mass produced Japanese 6 banger like a Q. .
:aug2 :bsflag Sorry, but calling a Q a six banger is getting personal......
When it all comes down to it, owning an old luxuary car IS going to cost money...... But I think (and have discoverd over COUNTLESS hours of research) have discovered that the Q (a V8
) is the equilibrium between power, luxuary, affordability, and reliability...... You can name any other car, I dont care...... They wont fulfill ALL of those things like the Q does...... Only one I can think of is a 1992 cadillac STS..... 4.9l pushrod lasts forever.....
Ill give a few examples......1. Old BMW 750-- Fast, luxurious, affordable (sometimes), but not so reliable.......2. Cadillac with northstar--- Affordable, really fast (but FWD :eek ), but also, not reliable.......3. Lexus LS400 (90-95)-- Luxurious, not so fast, and overpriced
Now, as long as people dont figure this out, we can still continue to get them dirt cheap...... Im anticipating getting a really nice 02 Q or M in the next few years.......
-
maxnix
- Posts: 22627
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2002 8:11 pm
- Car: 1995 Infiniti Q45
1995 Infiniti Q45t
2000 Infiniti Q45
Yep, the new BMW 760i is quite a different animal, but the old Jags and BMW V-12s are still old (for even when they were produced) technology. I did read your post. They are nothing remarkable except for the number of cylinders.
What the new MB engines do with one exhaust valve also compromises their high rpm gas flow, which is why they have to supercharge them to obtain sufficient performance. There are no current 3 valve racing motors which are competitive. The F50 was the only production V-12 Ferrari with 5 valve heads. The 360 continues with cinco valvole heads. The new Lamborghini V10 likewise forgoes 5 valve heads for a 4 valve design, significant since parent Audi still uses 5 valve heads on its production cars. Unfortunately like its parent Audi's engines, it is a horribly undersqare design, and I do know the emission ramifications of that design. Actually, this is another argument for more valves in in an undersquare engine since there is less head area available than in an oversquare design.
I'll stick with the old tech Nissan V8s.
What the new MB engines do with one exhaust valve also compromises their high rpm gas flow, which is why they have to supercharge them to obtain sufficient performance. There are no current 3 valve racing motors which are competitive. The F50 was the only production V-12 Ferrari with 5 valve heads. The 360 continues with cinco valvole heads. The new Lamborghini V10 likewise forgoes 5 valve heads for a 4 valve design, significant since parent Audi still uses 5 valve heads on its production cars. Unfortunately like its parent Audi's engines, it is a horribly undersqare design, and I do know the emission ramifications of that design. Actually, this is another argument for more valves in in an undersquare engine since there is less head area available than in an oversquare design.
I'll stick with the old tech Nissan V8s.
Sorry, but calling a Q a six banger is getting personal. In the early 90's when Oklahoma had one Infiniti dealership and it was in OKC, the three Tulsa area Nissan dealers and one of the Oldsmobile dealers would sometimes keep a low mileage Q in stock, that the sales or general manager would drive until it was sold. One day a local Nissan dealer had a maroon Q, with the mileage in the teen-thousands in their showroom. Here comes the salesman. Are you familiar with this car? It is a rocket. I've never driven a front wheel drive car with so much power. That darn spider plenum had him believing the Q was fwd. Damn.
about the old 750, took one for a test drive a few years ago.
bottom line: heavy heavy car, not good at hiding it at all. acceleration was disappointing, but 12 way power seats in all 4 corners does weigh you down a bit.
overall: you can get much more out of an infiniti for the same price. both J30 and Q45 feel faster, which they probably are...even my old z31 300zx NA was faster than that tank.
bottom line: heavy heavy car, not good at hiding it at all. acceleration was disappointing, but 12 way power seats in all 4 corners does weigh you down a bit.
overall: you can get much more out of an infiniti for the same price. both J30 and Q45 feel faster, which they probably are...even my old z31 300zx NA was faster than that tank.
-
Bubba1
- Moderator
- Posts: 16082
- Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 1:42 pm
- Car: 2003 Nissan 350z
2024 Honda HR-V
2008 Toyota Corolla S
2001 Toyota Avalon XLS
[QUOTE]Originally posted by elwesso "] :aug2 :bsflag
Sorry, but calling a Q a six banger is getting personal......
When it all comes down to it, owning an old luxuary car IS going to cost money...... But I think (and have discoverd over COUNTLESS hours of research) have discovered that the Q (a V8 ) is the equilibrium between power, luxuary, affordability, and reliability......
You can name any other car, I dont care...... They wont fulfill ALL of those things like the Q does...... Only one I can think of is a 1992 cadillac STS..... 4.9l pushrod lasts forever.....
Ill give a few examples......1. Old BMW 750-- Fast, luxurious, affordable (sometimes), but not so reliable.......2. Cadillac with northstar--- Affordable, really fast (but FWD :eek ), but also, not reliable.......3. Lexus LS400 (90-95)-- Luxurious, not so fast, and overpriced
I meant 8 banger, it was a typo. Settle down. And the LS400 was not overpriced. Having driven both, IMHO the LS400 has about the same straight line oomph as the Q but more softly sprung. Also the same price range as a Q, with similar reliabiility track record. On a windy road, I'd prefer the Q, as it handles well for a land yacht. But on a long trip, My tush would probably prefer the softer sprung LS400. (I just heard gasps)
I also think the BMW 5 series is more comparable to the Q, not a V-12 750. The 750 was more expensive when new than the Q. Another example of good handling full sized luxury car in the Q price range is the A6/S6. Quattro rocks.
I wouldn't call any of the cars mentioned the perfect blend as each has it's own strengths that appeal to different people.
If I were buying a used large luxury car, it would likely come down to a Q and Lexus. I'm not sure which one I'd choose. And before you label me a traitor and flame me, I am a multi Nissan owner.
:aug2 :bsflag Sorry, but calling a Q a six banger is getting personal......
When it all comes down to it, owning an old luxuary car IS going to cost money...... But I think (and have discoverd over COUNTLESS hours of research) have discovered that the Q (a V8
) is the equilibrium between power, luxuary, affordability, and reliability...... You can name any other car, I dont care...... They wont fulfill ALL of those things like the Q does...... Only one I can think of is a 1992 cadillac STS..... 4.9l pushrod lasts forever.....
Ill give a few examples......1. Old BMW 750-- Fast, luxurious, affordable (sometimes), but not so reliable.......2. Cadillac with northstar--- Affordable, really fast (but FWD :eek ), but also, not reliable.......3. Lexus LS400 (90-95)-- Luxurious, not so fast, and overpriced
I meant 8 banger, it was a typo. Settle down. And the LS400 was not overpriced. Having driven both, IMHO the LS400 has about the same straight line oomph as the Q but more softly sprung. Also the same price range as a Q, with similar reliabiility track record. On a windy road, I'd prefer the Q, as it handles well for a land yacht. But on a long trip, My tush would probably prefer the softer sprung LS400. (I just heard gasps)
I also think the BMW 5 series is more comparable to the Q, not a V-12 750. The 750 was more expensive when new than the Q. Another example of good handling full sized luxury car in the Q price range is the A6/S6. Quattro rocks.
I wouldn't call any of the cars mentioned the perfect blend as each has it's own strengths that appeal to different people.
If I were buying a used large luxury car, it would likely come down to a Q and Lexus. I'm not sure which one I'd choose. And before you label me a traitor and flame me, I am a multi Nissan owner.
-
elwesso
- Posts: 30810
- Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 4:52 pm
- Car: 94 Infiniti Q45t 5 spd
2007 BMW M Coupe
2007 Infiniti G35 S 6MT - Location: Indiana
- Contact:
No hard feelings, brutha!!!
Its just my opinion.......
When i said the LS is overpriced, they were about the same new as the Qs..... Im saying they are overpriced now!! USED!! Without having ridden in one, Id say the LS would be more comfortable, but not much..... If I was going for comfort on a road trip, Id go 95 cadillac fleetwood, hands down......
Its just my opinion.......
When i said the LS is overpriced, they were about the same new as the Qs..... Im saying they are overpriced now!! USED!! Without having ridden in one, Id say the LS would be more comfortable, but not much..... If I was going for comfort on a road trip, Id go 95 cadillac fleetwood, hands down......
Bubba1, I think most would agree (from a seat of pants rating) with what you said about both the Q & the LS. Short trips, the feel and handling of the Q wins out, but on long trips most would have to admit the Q seat is flat out uncomfortable. I've heard the pre-94's are worse, ouch. So, give that one to the LS 400.
And Wes is right, in "used" form, what most of us can find/afford, the Q beats the LS hands down. The LS is a good 20 to 30% higher for the same year/mileage/condition.
The 5 series is probably more comparable, but then someone always seems to say, "yeah, but the 5blahblah has a 6 speed and that...". So, for Wes' comparison the 7 series is more on line, but you're right it's a different class of car and the original sticker (unlike the LS400) is no where close, unless you're talking abiout the 735, but why would anyone do that???
We're not quick to label anyone discussing the facts as a traitor. That's a different part of the web/forum.
What's your honest thoughts on your 4 Runner, value, reliability, power, space, etc? I have a friend looking at the Toyota SUV's.
And Wes is right, in "used" form, what most of us can find/afford, the Q beats the LS hands down. The LS is a good 20 to 30% higher for the same year/mileage/condition.
The 5 series is probably more comparable, but then someone always seems to say, "yeah, but the 5blahblah has a 6 speed and that...". So, for Wes' comparison the 7 series is more on line, but you're right it's a different class of car and the original sticker (unlike the LS400) is no where close, unless you're talking abiout the 735, but why would anyone do that???
We're not quick to label anyone discussing the facts as a traitor. That's a different part of the web/forum.
What's your honest thoughts on your 4 Runner, value, reliability, power, space, etc? I have a friend looking at the Toyota SUV's.
The 1990 Q45 hits 60mph in 6.9-7.1s. The LS400 does it in 7.5-7.8s. LS400 does the 1/4 in about 15.7-16.0, and the Q does it in 15.1-15.5.
Most enthusiasts can feel that behind that wheel. 50-90 is another story.
The "old tech" Cadillac motors in the 93+ Seville STS will run forever and ever, with standard maintenance and typical driving. You might not get a perfect torque curve, but they can do 60mph in 7.2-7.4s, and the 1/4 in 15.4-15.6s.
And you cannot beat them in the snow. When the town stands frozen, the Seville is on the road!
-Jesda
Most enthusiasts can feel that behind that wheel. 50-90 is another story.
The "old tech" Cadillac motors in the 93+ Seville STS will run forever and ever, with standard maintenance and typical driving. You might not get a perfect torque curve, but they can do 60mph in 7.2-7.4s, and the 1/4 in 15.4-15.6s.
And you cannot beat them in the snow. When the town stands frozen, the Seville is on the road!
-Jesda
Rex wrote:Bubba1, I think most would agree (from a seat of pants rating) with what you said about both the Q & the LS. Short trips, the feel and handling of the Q wins out, but on long trips most would have to admit the Q seat is flat out uncomfortable. I've heard the pre-94's are worse, ouch. So, give that one to the LS 400.
I'd agree that 94-96 seats aren't that great, but 90-93 seats are outstanding IMO. They are the more comfortable seats I've ever sat in for long trips. Very supportive, and they hold you in place for spirited driving without being difficult to get in and out of. The 94-96 seats are much flatter, aren't nearly as comfortable for long trips and use a cheaper grade of leather that doesn't feel nearly as "rich" and is more prone to cracking.
-
Q451990
- Moderator
- Posts: 11030
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 8:21 am
- Car: 1990 Q45 - 118K, 2022 Toyota 4 Runner, 2004 Frontier M/T - 108K, 2012 Xterra (Mom's), 2023 Rogue (Inlaws)
- Location: Columbia, SC
- Contact:
I think the Q is the most comfortable long-distance car I've driven. Not a great list to compare with - an 88 and 91 Maxima both to Denver or back, an 89 and 90 Mercury Cougar (89 was a rental to Denver, 90 was mine) and a slew of rental cars that always made me soooo happy to get back in the Q. I drove a Pontiac Grand Am to New Orleans (or Grand Prix, can't remember which) with a low spot in the seat that made me think I'd be hunched over like grandma by the time I got home. Every Furd Tarus I've rented smelled like it was burning at least once and lurched from a start or stop... so bad my girlfriend would even notice it.
I always think on a long interstate trip cruising along at about 80 that "this is what the Q was built for..." - nice that it doubles as a great handling, fast, in-town car too!
Heath
I always think on a long interstate trip cruising along at about 80 that "this is what the Q was built for..." - nice that it doubles as a great handling, fast, in-town car too!
Heath
Rex wrote:I stand corrected, butt please don't ask me to sit in my car for 4 or more hours at a time. I LOVE the Q, but it makes me bottom sore after long sittings.
Maybe, I just need to work all the adjustments and find a better position.
(Pardon any horrible pun, intentional or otherwise)
I had to spend quite a bit of time playing around with the adjustments on the seat on my 95 to find a comfortable position. As I was driving it on a 1.5 hours trip home after buying it, I was starting to think I might not be keeping it very long because I was very uncomfortable in the seat. It's "ok" now, but not nearly as comfortable on long drives as the seat in my 93 was. I forget what I did, but I think raising the back of the seat bottom was the thing that improved comfort for me.
-
maxnix
- Posts: 22627
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2002 8:11 pm
- Car: 1995 Infiniti Q45
1995 Infiniti Q45t
2000 Infiniti Q45
Well, I just have to say the 1995 Q45 has very supportive seats and I have no problem driving long distances and arriving relaxed and refreshed from driving. My Seattle Q45 was driven from Brooklyn to Seattle in three full days (½ day to start, two full days, and ½ day to finish) in just under 3,000 miles the day after I closed on it.
If there is a better highway car, I probably wouldn't pay the 200%-300% increase in price it would cost.
I imagine different physiologies may play a unquantifiable role in perception of the comfort of the seating. I barely fit with the steering wheel all the way forward and the seat all the way down and back, so not many alternative configurations are available for me. My wife thought they were hard, but loved the heaters, and she is better cushioned than me. To each their own.__________________Brian1995 Q45 & Q45t
Discover the power of the button!
If there is a better highway car, I probably wouldn't pay the 200%-300% increase in price it would cost.
I imagine different physiologies may play a unquantifiable role in perception of the comfort of the seating. I barely fit with the steering wheel all the way forward and the seat all the way down and back, so not many alternative configurations are available for me. My wife thought they were hard, but loved the heaters, and she is better cushioned than me. To each their own.__________________Brian1995 Q45 & Q45t
Discover the power of the button!
The Q is unbelievably comfortable! I drove from Spokane to St Louis recently with only one stop. The miles just flew by, thanks also to XM radio.
I had a passenger with me who said the seat was hard, and he sat on a blanket for extra cushioning.
Worst long distance drive was in my 1988 Nissan Sentra. 5 hours to Seattle and 5 hours back... I thought I was going to DIE when I got out of the car.
-Jesda
I had a passenger with me who said the seat was hard, and he sat on a blanket for extra cushioning.
Worst long distance drive was in my 1988 Nissan Sentra. 5 hours to Seattle and 5 hours back... I thought I was going to DIE when I got out of the car.
-Jesda
-
maxnix
- Posts: 22627
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2002 8:11 pm
- Car: 1995 Infiniti Q45
1995 Infiniti Q45t
2000 Infiniti Q45
Yeah, she has not logged-on here yet, so I guess I am safe. She has curves everywhere whereas I only have one, and it's in front of me, so it doesn't affect seat feel much.__________________Brian1995 Q45 & Q45tRex wrote:LOL, you did not just say that about your wife.
Discover the power of the button!
-
Bubba1
- Moderator
- Posts: 16082
- Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 1:42 pm
- Car: 2003 Nissan 350z
2024 Honda HR-V
2008 Toyota Corolla S
2001 Toyota Avalon XLS
[quote=" Rex [What's your honest thoughts on your 4 Runner, value, reliability, power, space, etc? I have a friend looking at the Toyota SUV's. [/quote]My honest opinion? I love it and would consider buying another one. Mine is a loaded SR5 with a 5 speed I bought it new. Here are some quick thoughts
Value: top notch. They cost more to buy but they hold their value because they're so well built. Of course I have no intention of selling mine anytime soon.
Reliability: Lives up to its reputation. I 've only ever done routine maintenance, Never any warranty work and no repairs .
Power: Very torquey "6 banger". It does not have blazing speed, but it's peppy enough. I average 18mpg on regular gas. Not bad for a midsize SUV. I've gotten over 20mpg on long trips. Mine is a part time AWD, shift on the fly (2nd gear lever), with 2 gear ranges.
Space: about the same size as a 1st gen. Explorer. Not too large, not too small. Plenty of storage space. She does sit pretty high, so my wife insisted on leather seats (optional) and a running board (standard).
Handling: safe and predictable. Emergency handling is fine. Very forgiving chassis, brakes are good. Ground clearance is excellent if you want to go off-road with it. I have a few times.
Comfort: ride is firm, not soft/luxurious, (like a Tahoe). This is a truck based SUV so you feel the bumps. Think Tacoma based. Toyota's camry based Highlander has a somewhat softer ride. 4Runner is great on long trips.
Complaints: just two little ones:The cup holder is in front of the a/c center dash vent and blocks the clock when being used. Of course in the summer it keeps your drink cold. And I regret not getting a rear air deflector as the back window gets dirty very quickly without it.
Overall, very satisfying truck. The Pathfinder (both Nissan and Infiniti versions)is a nice truck too, but I felt it was too small.XTerra is also too small.
Value: top notch. They cost more to buy but they hold their value because they're so well built. Of course I have no intention of selling mine anytime soon.
Reliability: Lives up to its reputation. I 've only ever done routine maintenance, Never any warranty work and no repairs .
Power: Very torquey "6 banger". It does not have blazing speed, but it's peppy enough. I average 18mpg on regular gas. Not bad for a midsize SUV. I've gotten over 20mpg on long trips. Mine is a part time AWD, shift on the fly (2nd gear lever), with 2 gear ranges.
Space: about the same size as a 1st gen. Explorer. Not too large, not too small. Plenty of storage space. She does sit pretty high, so my wife insisted on leather seats (optional) and a running board (standard).
Handling: safe and predictable. Emergency handling is fine. Very forgiving chassis, brakes are good. Ground clearance is excellent if you want to go off-road with it. I have a few times.
Comfort: ride is firm, not soft/luxurious, (like a Tahoe). This is a truck based SUV so you feel the bumps. Think Tacoma based. Toyota's camry based Highlander has a somewhat softer ride. 4Runner is great on long trips.
Complaints: just two little ones:The cup holder is in front of the a/c center dash vent and blocks the clock when being used. Of course in the summer it keeps your drink cold. And I regret not getting a rear air deflector as the back window gets dirty very quickly without it.
Overall, very satisfying truck. The Pathfinder (both Nissan and Infiniti versions)is a nice truck too, but I felt it was too small.XTerra is also too small.